We are becoming increasingly concerned at what can only be described as the deliberate hoodwinking of an unsuspecting public. Our comments relate to one item from the regular VCAT Watch – namely the 8 Railway Parade, Murrumbeena decision. This was an application for a 3 storey and 15 dwellings development.
Reading the officer’s report, residents could be forgiven for believing that council has done everything in its power to halt this development. We’re told that the Delegated Planning Committee refused the application but that VCAT ordered a permit be granted. So far this is the truth. But it’s not the ENTIRE TRUTH! What is not revealed in the officer’s report is:
- Amended plans were submitted and it was these plans that were under consideration by VCAT
- Council fully accepted the amended plans
- The resident objector did not show up to the hearing and in fact was the owner of another 3 storey neighbouring development. He claimed amongst other things, that this proposed building would now ‘overshadow’ his.
Here is the important part of the officer’s report –
“The application was refused by Council on the grounds that the proposal did not adequately respond to its context in terms of urban character. Of particular concern was its poor transition to the adjoining property to the east, excessive visual bulk and failure to satisfy a number of ResCode standards. Thus the refusal was premised on a poor design response rather than a policy breach.
The Tribunal identified that the type of development proposed is to be anticipated in this location given its strategic context. It further identified that the implementation of the Housing Diversity Area Policy is clearly demonstrated by the recently constructed three-storey apartment building on the neighbouring property located to the east.
Ultimately the Tribunal determined that a three-storey building is acceptable on this site given its strategic context and the two and three-storey apartment buildings on neighbouring properties. Furthermore the Tribunal considered that the contemporary design and materials would be an appropriate response to the emerging character of the area.
The Tribunal therefore determined to overturn Council’s refusal and direct that a planning permit should be granted.”
The above extracts seek, we believe, to perpetuate the myth that all the blame should be laid at the feet of VCAT. Council is merely the poor, impotent victim where its decisions are continually overturned. Please note that we are not commenting on the application’s merits, nor the merits of the member’s decision. We’re not even commenting on the merit of the final agreement between Council and developer. What we are commenting on is the failure of this report to include all the salient facts.
When we go to what the member actually said, we find the following:
“On considering the amended plans, the Council finds the changes overcome its concerns with respect to the proposal. It now supports the grant of a permit subject to conditions. Pegasus Realty supports the grant of the permit subject to the Council’s conditions.”
“The Council submits that the proposal is now worthy of a permit. It submits that the land is strategically well located within a NAC that is well served by public transport and in an area where increased densities is encouraged. It also submits that the changes to the plans, particularly the increased setbacks and reduction in the size of the basement, result in an outcome that is acceptable.”
“To the extent that there is non-compliance with standard B6, I agree with both the Council and Mr McGurn that it is minor and acceptable given the angled alignment of the land’s frontage.”
Here are some questions to consider:
- Why couldn’t readers be told that the member was considering amended plans?
- Why couldn’t readers be told that council was accepting of these amended plans?
- Why couldn’t we be told that council argued strongly that the site was ‘strategically well located’ and that ‘increased densit(y) is encouraged’?
- Why couldn’t readers be told the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Source: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/vic/VCAT/2012/1843.html
Glen Eira Debates 
February 12, 2013 at 10:58 PM
The lesson I’m learning from all this is take everything they say with a mighty big tablespoon of salt. Bullshit has become a fine art in Glen Eira thanks to Newton and the gang.
February 13, 2013 at 7:51 AM
Same thing happened with the infamous C60 (Caulfield Village) massive overdevelopment. When it came time for the supposedly independent planning panel hearing the residents argued against the submitted and published plans which were for a smaller but still massive development. At the planning panel residents were faced which a development that had increased by 30-50% (4 storeys had become 6, 15 storeys had become 23) and that increase was with the full knowledge and assent of Council whose presentation only tinkered with the edges of the increase (ie. some set backs). As a result, residents felt that the planning panel was dismissive of their objections as they were out of date.
The above instance of Council providing one set of info to residents yet another amended set of info, which Council has not advised the residents of and has approved, to an “independent” adjuicating body is not unique. It is just another tactic that this administration uses, and the elected representatives allow, to ram development into Glen Eira.
February 13, 2013 at 8:21 AM
Great, really great.
We already have Council blaming VCAT when the real culprit is the shonky Glen Eira planning scheme . Now we also have Council failing to inform residents of amendments to previously rejected permit applications, which Council now approves and supports at VCAT, yet still officially records it as yet another “blame VCAT for overturning Council” instance.
The only reason Council gets away with it is that disgruntled, frustrated and worn down objectors lack the publicity resources that Council has. The fact that those disgruntled, frustrated and worn down objectors foot the bill for Council’s publicity resources offers no consolation.
To the blog – good work for highlighting the extremely shonky performance of this Council.
February 13, 2013 at 10:38 AM
Spin doctors have always been an integral part of politics. What’s changed is the focus. Perhaps years ago the spin was partly designed to “protect” citizens and create an optimism in the time of war. Now the spin is overwhelmingly directed towards covering up any embarrassing truth or error. Glen Eira fits this second category perfectly.
The magnitude and prevalence of spin becomes crucial when seen in the context of good government. If official reports leave out essential data and information and only one side of the coin is consistently presented, then there can’t be good government. The blog has shown error after error in such reports or spin that’s meant to convey a totally different version of reality. Councillors are blind sided and their decisions become suspect if they’re based on these suspect reports – ignoring of course the political manoevring that happens out of the limelight and the favours that are exchanged.
Change only a few words, leave out a crucial sentence and the entire meaning can be altered. If the target is vcat then it is very easy. Few people would argue with the accusations and it serves the prime objective beautifully – there’s the guilty party (vcat), not us and certainly not our planning scheme and the mess that it supports.